IFPRI Malawi virtual brown bag seminar presentation by Natasha Siyumbwa (IDinsight) and T. Arthur Chibwana (Christian Aid)

1. 1
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PRO-RESILIENCE
ACTION MALAWI
30 September 2020
Presented by:
Natasha Siyumbwa, Idinsight
T. Arthur Chibwana, Christian Aid
IFPRI Malawi Virtual Brown Bag Seminar

2. 2
AGENDA
1. Introduction to IDinsight
2. Introduction to Christian Aid
3. Overview of the SCTP
4. Overview of Pro-ACT
5. Motivation for the study
6. Study design
7. Key findings and recommendations
8. Conclusion

3. 3
• IDinsight is an NGO that helps leaders make decisions using data and
evidence
• IDinsight has worked in 20 countries across Africa and Asia
• IDinsight is embedded in the Ministry of Gender, Community
Development and Social Welfare, and provides technical support to the
SCTP on data systems strengthening and social protection plus
• IDinsight’s work in Malawi includes:
OVERVIEW OF IDINSIGHT
The SCTP
MoGCD&SW
FARMSE Graduation
Programme
Social protection policy
MOFEP&D
The NGO Board

4. 4
• Christian Aid (CA) is a partnership of people, churches and local organizations
committed to ending poverty worldwide
• CA has worked in 37 countries across Africa. Asia, the Middle East, Latin
America and the Caribbean
• CA has implemented several Cash+ interventions providing complementary
services to Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) beneficiaries
• CA’s work in Malawi focuses on three broad strategic areas:
OVERVIEW OF CHRISTIAN AID
Economic Justice
Health Justice
Social Protection, Inclusive Markets And Enterprise
Development, Financial Inclusion, Social Inequality And Poverty
Alleviation, and Accountable Governance
HIV/AIDS, Nutrition and Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health
Climate Justice Climate Change Responses, Humanitarian, And Resilience

5. 5
THE SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMME
Implementer
Goal
Timeline
The SCTP provides unconditional cash transfers to almost
300,000 ultra-poor and labour-constrained households
The Ministry of Gender, Community Development and
Social Welfare
To provide consumption support to Malawi’s poorest in
order to build resilience to food insecurity
2006 - present
Target group
Programme beneficiaries must be labour-constrained and
ultra-poor
Programme

6. 6
THE ACTION: PRO-ACT MLUMIKIZI
Programme
Implementer
Goal
Timeline
Pro-Resilience Action: Building Resilience to Food and
Nutrition Security (Pro-ACT) Malawi is funded by the EU
The programme is implemented by two consortia. The
MLUMIKIZI consortia is led by Christian Aid (CA)
Reduce food and nutrition insecurity of 65,000 SCTP
beneficiaries in the 7 targeted districts
2017 to 2020
Target group SCTP participants

7. 7
• SCT beneficiaries are categorized into two primary groupings (PG) based
on their potential to step out, step up, or remain in need of safety-nets
• Beneficiaries receive sets of interventions that suit their capacities based
on their PG
• The interventions cover asset building, economic participation, mind-set
change and community system strengthening
BENEFICIARY PROFILING AND
CLASSIFICATION
PG-Category Eligibility CriteriaProfile
PG-1
PG-2
Hanging in
Stepping up
and out
Have no land, have no labour capacity
Have land, have no labour capacity
Have land and labour
Have no land, but have labour
A household has labour capacity if at least one member of the household is aged
19-64, is fit for work, and is not attending school.

8. 8
• Christian Aid and IDinsight partnered to conduct a study assessing
participant’s experiences with three Pro-ACT interventions:
MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
Lean season cash top ups
(CTUs)
Village savings and loans
(VSLs)
Climate smart agriculture
(CSA)
• The purpose of the study was to draw lessons that may inform cash plus
programming for Pro-ACT as well as the numerous cash plus actors in
Malawi
• Specifically, the learnings will be:
Incorporated into Pro-ACT’s next
phase, Social Support for Resilience
(SoSuRe)
Shared with key cash plus
stakeholders to inform cash plus
policy and programme design

9. 9
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Study sites
Timeline
Sample
Descriptive study
Neno district (Symon and Chekuchecku TAs)
Mzimba North district (Mpherembe and Mtwalo TAs)
March – June 2020
371 households
10 key informants
Tools
Household survey
Key informant interviews
Type of study

10. 10
INTERVENTIONS OF INTEREST
** PG-1 is HHs with no labour capacity, PG-2 is HHs with labour capacity**
Lean Season Cash Top-Ups
(CTUs)
Intervention Activity
PG-2 participants receive
CTUs during the lean
season
Outcome
Participants focus on
farming and do not
engage in negative lean
season coping strategies
Village Savings and Loans
Associations (VSLs)
PG-1 and PG-2
participants are mobilized
to join or form VSLs, and
receive trainings
Participants accumulate
savings and have access
to financial services
Climate Smart Agriculture
(CSA)
PG-2 participants are
encouraged to attend CSA
trainings and adopt CSA
practices
Participants improve their
household’s production
for improved food and
nutrition security
A household has labour capacity if at least one member of the household is aged
19-64, is fit for work, and is not attending school.

11. 11
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS
Are the programme households categorised and targeted as intended?
Are the key interventions likely to achieve their intended outputs and
outcomes?
What are areas for improvements in the implementation of the programme?
1
2
3
Household
interviews
371 HHs were selected
using a two-stage cluster
design. The sample was
stratified on PG and TA
Tool Sample Analysis
Stata was used to adjust
final estimates with
population weights and
generate statistics
Key
informant
interviews
10 key informants,
including implementing
partners and government
officers, were interviewed
Key informant interview
notes were aggregated in
Microsoft Excel and
analysed thematically
Output
Beneficiary
experiences
Implementer
feedback

12. 12
• The study did not attempt to determine whether the interventions had a
causal impact on participants’ livelihoods or resilience
• The results are only representative of the Pro-ACT beneficiary population
living in the selected TAs in the two districts
• Due to unforeseen circumstances, such as funerals and COVID-19, the
survey team only reached 80% of respondents in three out of four TAs,
and we were unable to conduct focus group discussions with field workers
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
District Traditional
Authority
Clusters reached Respondents
reached
Mzimba North
Mpherembe 100% 83%
Mtwalo 100% 81%
Neno
Chekucheku 100% 100%
Symon 100% 82%

13. 13
KEY FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

14. 14
LABOUR CAPACITY IS AN APPROPRIATE
CLASSIFIER FOR SCTP BENEFICIARIES
• 60% of households in the study have labour capacity but only 42% have HH heads
that are fit for work (FFW)
Implementers should classify beneficiaries using characteristics that indicate
whether they can fully participate in interventions

15. 15
THE MOST VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS ARE
NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN VSLS
Implementers could encourage beneficiaries to save by offering
sensitisation/coaching on financial literacy to beneficiaries at pay points
• 66% of participant households had members in a VSL
• 69% of the non-VSL beneficiaries did not join a VSL because they could not afford
the minimum contribution, suggesting that the most vulnerable households are
not joining VSLs
Findings from Pro-ACT’s baseline study showed that 34.7% and 35.3% of
households in Neno and Mzimba North, respectively, had members in a VSL

16. 16
VSL MEMBERS HAVE ACCESS TO AND USE
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Policy makers should continue to promote VSLs as a means of financially
including the poor and the ultra-poor
Implementers should continue to promote VSL membership as VSLs seem to
be working well for those that join them
• 92% of VSL members have access to a social emergency fund (SEF) and 27%
withdrew money from it
o Only 7% of participants with access to a SEF felt that there was a time
when they should have received money from the SEF but did not
• 62% of VSL members have requested a loan, with 99% of those receiving it
• 82% of VSL members have received their share-out after a cycle of saving
• This is an indication that VSLs in communities are well functioning and serving
their intended purpose

17. 17
VSL MEMBERS FOUND SUPPLEMENTARY
TRAININGS USEFUL
• Only 33% of VSL members participated in supplementary trainings, but 100% who
participated in them found them useful.
Implementers should sensitize beneficiaries on VSLs and the available
trainings in their area during cash transfers
Implementers should further investigate barriers to beneficiaries’
participation in supplementary trainings

18. 18
CTU RECIPIENTS SPEND THEIR TRANSFERS
AS INTENDED
• Households spend CTUs on consumption as well as productive activities such
as agriculture inputs and livestock management, as intended by the
programme
Implementers should further promote productive-oriented CTUs (in addition
to consumption-oriented CTUs)

19. 19
CTU RECIPIENTS PARTICIPATED IN
NEGATIVE LEAN SEASON COPING
STRATEGIES
• 19% of CTU recipients sold
assets and 40% engaged in
ganyu due to the lean season
• Key informants also reported
that beneficiaries’ main
complaint via the GRM is
insufficient CTU levels
Implementers should promote interventions that reduce the number of food
deficit months to reduce participation in negative coping strategies
Implementers should weigh the trade-off between increasing CTU levels and
increasing coverage

20. 20
HALF OF CTU RECIPIENTS ARE NOT AWARE
OF WAYS TO FILE THEIR GRIEVANCES
• 52% of CTU recipients were
unaware of ways to file their
grievances about the
programme
• Of those that were aware,
the most commonly known
mechanisms were
community structures (61%)
and suggestion boxes (37%)
Policy makers should consider integrating NGO programmes into the new
harmonized grievance redress mechanism
Implementers should prioritize sensitizing programme participants on
available grievance redress mechanisms

21. 21
CSA TRAINING ATTENDEES ADOPTED THE
TECHNIQUES TAUGHT
• 59% of programme
participants attended at
least one training, and
most attendees report
adopting the practices
and techniques taught
• This shows that if
participants attend
trainings, they are likely to
adopt the practices taught
Implementers should prioritize encouraging participants to attend trainings

22. 22
GOVERNMENT AND NGO DSA GUIDELINES DO
NOT ALIGN
• Key informants (KIs) reported that Government, and cash plus
implementers have faced challenges in aligning government and NGO
daily subsistence allowance (DSA) guidelines
• Tensions arise because NGOs provide higher DSAs than the
government or other NGOs
• These tensions can lead to delays or weaknesses in programme
implementation.
• The government and donors have co-signed harmonized DSA
guidelines for all donor-funded projects
District councils should prioritize enforcing the harmonized DSA guidelines for
all NGOs in the district and sensitize government workers on the rates

23. 23
THE PROGRAMME FACED CHALLENGES IN
DELIVERING INTERVENTIONS TO ISOLATED
PARTICIPANTS
• Pro-ACT and the SCTP deliver interventions at cluster level to keep
logistics simple and implementation affordable
• KIs reported that it is difficult and costly to deliver trainings or conduct
monitoring in isolated clusters or clusters with few participants
• This created barriers for participants on the outskirts of the cluster to
access the interventions, and is a common problem faced by both the
SCTP and other cash plus implementers.
Implementers should accommodate beneficiaries located far away from
implementation sites by enhancing lead farmer or para-extension models
Implementers should explore alternative ways to deliver extensions services,
including using radio, phones, and information fliers

24. 24
THE SCTP AND CASH PLUS IMPLEMENTERS
FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES IN PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
• The challenges identified are not unique to Pro-ACT; other cash plus
stakeholders face similar challenges
• The SCTP is considering including a learning agenda in its 5-year
strategy enabling NGOs to align their studies with government
priorities
• The government could also keep track of evaluations to allow for NGOs
to coordinate and share learnings more easily
Once the government implements the learning agenda, implementers should
take government priorities into account when designing evaluations
The social protection policy holder can prioritize soliciting learnings from well
designed evaluations to better guide implementers to maximize impact

25. 25
CONCLUSION
• There are strong indications the three interventions are achieving their
intended outputs and outcomes in Mzimba North and Neno:
Only 19% of CTU recipients reported selling assets and 7% reported
migrating due to the lean season, which are negative coping strategies
66% of participant HHs have members that are part of VSLs and almost
all VSL members access loans and many use other VSL financial services
59% of participant HHs have members that attended CSA trainings and
most that attend report adopting the practices taught and find them
better than their usual practices
**The study did not attempt to determine whether the interventions**
had a causal impact on participants’ livelihoods or resilience

26. 26
CONCLUSION
• The study also identified areas of improvement for future resilience
programmes, such as SoSuRe, and cash plus programmes more generally
• Cash plus programmes should:
Design programmes to include innovative means (such as para-
extension models and multi-media) to reach beneficiaries in hard to
reach areas
Continue to promote VSLs by utilizing pay points for sensitization and
investigate remaining barriers to beneficiaries joining VSLs and attending
VSL supplementary trainings
Prioritize coordination between government and NGOs at community,
district and central level to align on DSA, GRMs, monitoring and
evaluations

27. 27
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CASH
PLUS IMPLEMENTERS
• Many cash plus implementers face challenges in meeting the
requirements for rigorous impact evaluations once they reach the
evaluation stage of the project plan
• Rigorous impact evaluations (IEs) generally require randomising who
receives the programme prior to the programme beginning (Random
Controlled Trial)
• Impact evaluations can be costly and so must be budgeted for well in
advance
Cash plus implementers should design the project and monitoring
framework, with the appropriate budget to allow for the desired
evaluations to take place
Cash plus implementers should publicize key learnings and make the
data available to fellow implementers where possible
Besides randomizing, other impact evaluation approaches include propensity
score matching and regression discontinuity designs

28. 28
THANK YOU!
For more information contact:
Natasha Siyumbwa, IDinsight: Natasha.Siyumbwa@IDinsight.org
and
T. Arthur Chibwana, Christian Aid: achibwana@christian-aid.org

29. 29
The study is conducted with financial support from Christian Aid Innovation Funds